Jump to content

Talk:Big Hero 6 (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Distribution

Walt Disney Pictures is the distributor for all films created by Walt Disney Animation Studios. We have multiple verifiable sources attesting to Walt Disney Pictures distributing Big Hero 6. So please do not change it to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.Richiekim (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, Walt Disney Pictures is actually the PRODUCTION ARM and does not distribution arm, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. They have the same name and have previous different names. Then who does the production of the movies, Disney's accounting department or Disney Music Group?
As in 2009 this source indicates:
  • President, Production, Walt Disney Pictures
  • President, Distribution, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures International
  • President, Distribution, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
So the source indicate that the distribution arm and the production arm currently have the same name, in 2009 production was name "Walt Disney Pictures" and distribution was named "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. Hence the business units' current names at WP. Spshu (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
From the Walt Disney Pictures Wiki page:
Walt Disney Pictures is an American film studio and one of several film distribution labels of The Walt Disney Studios, owned by The Walt Disney Company. Based at the Walt Disney Studios, it is the main production company for live-action feature films within the The Walt Disney Studios unit and serves as the main distributor brand for several of Disney's other production companies.Richiekim (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
So that isn't support by the source indicated nor any other source I have run across as indicated above. Spshu (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
These three sources; Source A Source B, and Source C (which already exists as a source on the WDP wiki page) all refer to Walt Disney Pictures (identifed as "Disney" in A and B) as film banners/brands, which supports Richiekim's reasoning that Walt Disney Pictures is a film label as well. In fact, the lead of the Wiki page goes onto say that "Animated features produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar Animation Studios, DisneyToon Studios and Studio Ghibli (North America distribution) are usually released by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures under the Walt Disney Pictures banner." In regards to said films, you don't see a "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures presents" credit at the beginning of a Disney-branded film. Instead, you see "Walt Disney Pictures presents" (or "Disney presents" nowadays), whereas WDSMP is credited separately at the end.
Spshu, you are correct in referring to Walt Disney Pictures as a production arm, because it does produce its own movies (mainly live-action, ex: Pirates of the Caribbean). However, it is also a film label that WDSMP uses to distribute films under. A perfect example would be the vast majority of Disney-distributed Studio Ghibli movies, which are not produced by Disney (only distributed) and yet are still released under the Walt Disney Pictures banner. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Although it conflicts with what I previously argued before, per the rational reasoning and outside administrator suggestion given here and to appease both sides of the issue, I've changed the studio and distributor parameters accordingly. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Jedi94, one, there was no consenus there and administrators don't have any more weight in the discussion then you or I. You have now contradicted yourself at Talk:Marvel Studios in claiming that WDMP should be listed as a distributor.
Source A & Source B only indicates one distribution banner, Touchstone Pictures: "and Touchstone Pictures, the banner under which live-action films from DreamWorks Studios are distributed.". Source B also states "Sean Bailey

President, Production, Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production" so WDSMP is distribution and production. Just WDSMP Production is ID at WP as WDP and WDSMP Distribution is ID at WP as WDSMP. So, just wikilink to the distribution arm for distribution. At best you argue for a WDP wikilink, but bizarrely go for WDP. Spshu (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I think it's safe to say that this article needs some protection, in response to the persistent vandalism it has received most recently.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I just requested for page protection. Koala15 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014

New Writers Added to the Film

Robert L. Baird and Daniel Gerson from Monsters University, Cars and Meet the Robinsons

200.8.205.23 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Starring" infobox field

As of now, only three voice actors are known, and the characters they portray (where known) are supporting characters in the comic books. While we don't know if they will remain supporting characters in this re-imagining, we also don't know if they are the leads. Since the "starring" infobox field is intended for the lead performers in the film, and since we don't know who those actors will be, this field should remain blank until Disney reveals who will be getting top billing on Big Hero 6. --McDoobAU93 13:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Undoing editing

The article says: "While co-directing Winnie the Pooh, director Don Hall was scrolling through a database of Marvel characters when he stumbled upon Big Hero 6, a comic he had never heard of before."

This was changed to: "While co-directing Winnie the Pooh, director Don Hall was scrolling through a Marvel database looking for something obscure without a detail-obsessed fan base when he stumbled upon Big Hero 6, a comic he had never heard of before."

And still it was reverted back to the first version. Why? Had the last version been the original text, no such things would have happened. "Marvel database" is better than "database of Marvel characters" since it also includes teams and titles. And as the references says, Big Hero 6 was not just picked on random as Don Hall was determined to find something with potential that few were aware about so that there would be minimal of complaints about the changes when adapting it from the comic to a movie. The reason for the choice should be mentioned, and if some thinks it's not properly written or whatever, why not rewrite it themselves instead of reverting all of it? 84.210.10.52 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Big Hero 6 Robots

I was going through this article on Big Hero 6 Robots (http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/big-hero-6-robots.php) and was wondering if the wiki page should have a separate heading for them where it can go into details about Baymax and Microbots? 162.234.250.7 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

[sic]

A user called Karin keeps insisting the phrase "sheer amount" needs to have [sic] after it. The phrase is not unusual and simply means 'large quantity'. A dictionary definition translation of "sheer amount" might cause confusion but the phrase is perfectly acceptable English and there is no need to add [sic] after it.

The other use of [sic] "there’s a much bigger world out there than [sic] really interests him" is because readers might expect the word "that" as opposed to "than", and if someone did erroneously try to correctly it then marking it [sic] might be necessary. -- 109.77.145.49 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Further edit summaries indicate the user is making a grammar point suggesting amount must only be used for uncountable quantities. -- 109.77.145.49 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
So what you are trying to say this word has a double meaning relatively different to each other?. If so then readers might easily get confused. I also noticed that this word is mentioned several times in the article. I don't think it's really necessary to mention non-English word multiple times in English wiki.--Chamith (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Like I posted on (talk): http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/amount.html Karin Anker (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, you both are near an edit war, further reversions might lead you to a block.--Chamith (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: We are talking here about the quote "sheer amount of robots." That won't do. "Sheer amount of natural gas", however, would. Again, see http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/amount.htmlGrammar is spooky.Karin Anker (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


ChamithN the use of the latin term [sic] is not (really) the problem, [maybe I different section title would have been clearer] it is used in formal English and nearly as well understood other latin leftovers things like etc, nb, ie. While it is better to avoid latin terms to keep things simpler, the dispute here is essentially the same argument as Fewer vs. less: Karin is saying that it was technically incorrect of the quoted person to say "sheer amount of robots" and my argument is that it is common usage (not a mistake) and that adding sic is an unnecessary criticism of his grammar.

Frankly the grammar is beside the point I'd be more than happy for Karin to change the paragraph and remove the direct quote, and paraphrase instead. The whole point is that the designer was trying to achieve a unique look for the robot and not something that looked like the many other robots out there. -- 109.77.145.49 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"They be Radiohead" is also common usage. Doesn't make it correct. It has been resolved thanks to User:ChamithN
Karin Anker (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
If you (IP editor) still believe that there is something wrong with our decision you can take it to dispute resolution noticeboard. File a report there and we can get help regarding the subject, from other editors .--Chamith (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care fewer. I'll rephrase to avoid the quote. -- 109.77.145.49 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not alter quotes. They are quotes. Karin Anker (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Article protection

I think that this article should be protected. Lately users have been repeatedly altering the plot section, by either adding too many details, or removing parts of the epilogue. In short, they have been blatantly ignoring the tag in this section. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And it recently happened again. It is really a nuisance. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

plot query

i have a query about one part of the plot; about the fire at the university... If Callaghan had used the microbots to survive, could it possibly mean that the fire and subsequent explosion were no accident? Visokor (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

Please change the part "23rd highest grossing animated film of all time" in the Reception (Box Office) section to "16th highest grossing...", because on the "List of highest-grossing animated films" wiki page it says Big Hero 6 is the 16th highest. Thank you. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films#Highest-grossing_animated_films 61.48.71.2 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources (NB Wikipedia is not a reliable source), and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambig/title

Given the fact that the film is far better known than the comic book characters, wouldn't it be in better compliance with WP naming policies to make this article Big Hero 6 and move the other article to Big Hero 6 (comics)? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not such a crazy idea. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: leave Big Hero 6 (film) where it is, move Big Hero 6 to Big Hero 6 (comics), then make Big Hero 6 a disambiguation page. The latter part will be accomplished by moving Big Hero 6 (disambiguation) to Big Hero 6, leaving a redirect behind. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation links fixed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - the movie is more well known than the comic. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The comics are clearly not the "primary topic". The two criteria give for that are which is more likely to be the item being searched for (indisputably the movie) and long-term significance (the comics team was already largely forgotten when the movie was made). This is not recentism, it's about notability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support both. The move to (comics) per the arguments above. As for the film becoming the primary topic, I was curious to see when Disney films did and did not supplant their source material to become primary topic, so we can see what history has to say will most likely happen here. Prior to Big Hero 6, once you remove original works, the package films, and adaptations given new names (like Oliver and Company or Frozen), there are 24 Disney animated movies based off previous source material. The ones disambiguated as (film) or ([Year] film) tend to break down into three groups: adaptations of (public domain) fairy or folk tales (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Chicken Little), adaptations of (public domain) historical or legendary figures (Robin Hood, Pocahontas, Hercules, Mulan), and adaptations of public domain literature (Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, The Jungle Book, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan). There are only three exceptions, all from literature not in the public domain: The Sword in the Stone, which isn't in the public domain, but its characters (Merlin and Arthur) are, Winnie the Pooh, a movie based off a work Disney had already adapted several times before and whose name is also the name of the most well-known character in it, and The Black Cauldron, a critical and commercial failure that Disney barely even acknowledges exists anymore.
Since these criteria don't apply to Big Hero 6 - it isn't public domain, it isn't well-known due to frequent adaptations, and it isn't a failure Disney just wants to sweep under the rug and forget about, it is likely that if Big Hero 6 hasn't already joined Dumbo, Bambi, The Rescuers, and The Fox and the Hound as a work overshadowed in the public consciousness by the Disney adaptation of it, it will soon. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The comics version is pretty obscure as admitted by the filmmakers: "the studio intentionally sought out an obscure property so they could make it their own"[1] —seav (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of (film), Support move to (comic), redirect Big Hero 6 to film, hatnotes on both. Krychek (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the move from Big Hero 6 to Big Hero 6 (comics), then move Big Hero 6 (disambiguation) to Big Hero 6. I normally don't advocate 2-entry disambiguation pages, especially since we guideline that explains how to avoid it, but given the above comments that explain that both articles referenced in the move need disambiguators (which I agree with), then this means that confusion is highly likely. That, and from what I understand about both topics referenced, the film is very loosely based on the comic, including the film having an extra character (the brother) and the six main characters being completely different. What this means is that there will be a group of people who follow the comic (probably older individuals), and a group of people who follow the film (probably younger individuals). It seems that there is probably close to a 50/50 ratio of who is more familiar with which topic, so thus, the great chance for confusion is in place, meaning landing at a disambiguation page is necessary to help the reader determine which article they want to read. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
...and Krychek. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur regarding (comics) over (comic), but I don't agree on the 50/50 split. The film is far more widely known than the comic among all age groups -- this fact has been the topic of several public conversations surrounding the film, which has won an Academy Award, while the comic would still be quite obscure if not for the film. Krychek (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Why is this requested move open after a month and a half?? All votes were to dis-ambiguate the comics, and I moved the comics but then my move was reverted. Georgia guy (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Georgia guy: It's open because no one has volunteered to close it. I reverted the move since this discussion is still open, and moving any of the articles before the discussion close breaks the discussion and can confuse other readers/editors. However, yes, I do agree this discussion has been open for quite a while, and may need to be posted on WP:ANRFC for a proper, and hopefully expedited, close. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Starring parameter

I think we need some clarity brought to the |starring= parameter of the infobox. Are all these people "stars" of the film? The question is sparked by these edits [2][3][4] by IP 173.58.158.194 who seems to believe that being in the movie is the same thing as starring in the movie. My attempts to explain this to him on his talk page have failed, since he resubmitted the content yet again. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Big Hero 7

Stan Lee just confirmed this month that a sequel to Big hero 6 is now in production. Should we update the article? Sources: http://www.realtytoday.com/articles/15635/20150610/big-hero-6-movie-sequel-updates-7-officially-confirmed-plot.htm http://en.yibada.com/articles/39040/20150618/big-hero-7-confirmed-tadashi-alive.htm http://www.vcpost.com/articles/74922/20150617/big-hero-7-news-sequels-plausible-plot-twists-teased-tadashi.htm

I don't see how any of these could reasonably be used to report Hollywood entertainment news. If production has already started on this film, the major Hollywood trades would presumably have the coverage first not "Realty Today". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Time setting

The film takes place in 2032. You can tell because the buses around the city have stickers celebrating the 95th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge. 11:29, 6 September, 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.143.10 (talk)

That is original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. Need something well-referenced and explicit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly, though, wouldn't this be considered in-source details? (i.e. you don't need an external source to state Hiro first builds bots for Robot Fight Club, or that Wasabi got his name from an unfortunate incident with wasabi; they're stated/shown in the film). Would a citation to a certain point in the film be appropriate? Axslayer33 (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Accuracy

Can someone look over this section for either a rewrite or removal? It's written like a middle-school research report, takes one of the quotes entirely out of context (The section states the movie brought one robotics professor to tears five times. The article points out that A. said professor was a consultant for the movie and B. some of those tears were tears of pride.)and neither NotImpossibleNow nor GeekDad has criticism. Also, I'm currently at work so I can't personally vet the last source....but Quora's like here, anyone can claim to be an expert on anything.Axslayer33 (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed categories

In this edit, multiple categories that are actually valid were removed. In you'll check buddy films for example, you'll see this actually IS a buddy movie. Even sources that rejected films like Gordy and Oliver & Company as buddy films would accept Big Hero 6 as one. The only category that didn't seem correct would be the one calling it a teen film. Usually teen films are ones like Teen Beach Movie and High School Musical. This film is still classified as a buddy movie from what I could find. Anyone agree with me on this? Kkjj (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Which reliable source has ever described this movie as a buddy film? Looks like personal opinion to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It was mentioned by a site called TheTopTens, of which I am a member. This same site rejected the following films from the category:

Big Hero 6 was one of the ones that were accepted along with The Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers, The Rescuers Down Under, and The Jungle Book. Unfortunately, the user who told me which films weren't buddy movies retired, or else I would have asked him (Darth-Snorpy) for verified proof. But in the meantime, can we take off the teen films category? It was never described as a teen film on TheTopTens, unlike the aforementioned Teen Beach Movie and High School Musical. Kkjj (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I took off the teen films categories. They seem just as opinionated and don't even seem to actually apply. Kkjj (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
TheTopTens FAQ says this is an anonymous user created site. This site will not meet reliable source guidelines as a source of info for Wikipedia articles. WP:Defining has a good description of what should be categories. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I also considered adding Category:Animated films about death to this article as this film deals with death, much like The Fox and the Hound, Bambi, The Lion King, and Finding Nemo. This discussion is also being brought up at The Great Mouse Detective, another film people I know dislike for being death-related. Also, TheTopTens may be anoyymous user created, but the user I was talking to (Darth-Snorpy) should have had a source somewhere. Which kinds of sources would work for this article? Common Sense Media described Big Hero 6 as a film about brothers in the same way in which Frozen is about sisters. Are they unreliable too? Kkjj (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kkjj: 'Death' is not defining for the film, it is just something that happens, a plot point. We should not be adding categories for each and every plot point that is in the film, they should be the major genres as covered by reliable sources such as reviews in major news outlets. If it isn't in the lead of the article, it likely isn't important as a category either. Frozen is generally considered a film about sisters by pretty much every review and article about the film as that is the major concept driving the film. The fact that in Big Hero 6, two of the characters are brothers is minor in comparison and Common Sense Media is a bit of an outlier if they say that is a major part of what this film is about. Find out from Darth-Snorpy what his sources were so we can evaluate them ourselves. I would consider the major reviews in Rotten Tomatoes as better sources for how the major critics define what the film genres are. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
AllMovie lists Sibling Relationships as one of the themes of the film. Is that defining enough? Kkjj (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kkjj: AllMovie.com seems to be considered a reliable source per WP:RSN. Allmovie says "Themes: Heroic Mission | Robots and Androids | Sibling Relationships" and those are mentioned in the article. Looks reasonable to be considered defining for this movie. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
So, does this mean the category for films about siblings can stay? Kkjj (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kkjj: I, personally, don't think it is about siblings after seeing the movie as one of them gets killed fairly early on in the story and it is more a driver of the plot then something the movie is majorly about. AllMovie seems to disagree and supports inclusion as a category. I don't like it but can't justify removing it as there is a reference for it. We don't have to put it in, though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like it to be here as long as it can. But on the other hand the buddy films, films about orphans, and even films about death are arguably more fitting considering they are more major to the plot. I was hoping we could include each and all of these categories, but for now I'm waiting for more proof that they are allowed. I'll start with the siblings category and wait for a source for the other three. Kkjj (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Hero_6_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1136563308"